JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Petitioner having been convicted for violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities' Act read with Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration 'of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and Order respectively) and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 4.000/- in default to undergo R. I. for three months more and such conviction and sentences having been confirmed in appeal has preferred this revision. 2. It is the prosecution evidence as disclosed from p.w.l the Inspector of Supplies and P.Ws. 2 and 3 the witnesses to the search and seizure that a raid was conducted in the shop of the Petitioner on 23-8-1979 at 11.30 a. m. and while the stocks of refined oil, vegetable oil and Mung Dal were found to be in excess than what was declared in the stock and price board, the stock of batteries and white paper found in the shop were not at all declared in the said board of his shop. The plea taken by the Petitioner in defence was that batteries and cocoanut oil had been purchased on the very day of the raid and because of rush in the shop the articles had not been entered in the board. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has urged in assailing the conviction, that the prosecution has signally failed to prove the Petitioner to be a dealer in the essential commodities found in his premises and that in absence of such proof the conviction cannot be maintained. 4. Reliance has been placed on the definition of "Dealer" in the Order, io Clause 2 (a) thereof, defining the same to be a person carrying on business of selling essential commodities and including a producer wholeseller or retailer. It bas been rightly urged by him placing reliance on Manipur Administration v. M. Nila Chandra Singh 1964 S.C.D. 581 that carrying on business as a dealer means something more than more stocking of articles in the premises and that to prove that a business is being carried on in the articles in question, the continuity of the transaction of business must be shown since' otherwise the definition in the Order would be rendered meaningless and superfluous. Doubtless, in the present case the prosecution has exhibited Ext. Doubtless, in the present case the prosecution has exhibited Ext. 5 series to show that the Petitioner had made bulk purchase of batteries. But when absolutely no evidence has been led to show that the Petitioner was dealing in the same as a dealer and had sold the same as such. No sale cash-memo or duplicate of the same has been seized nor any document evidencing his dealership in this article or his having licences under different control orders as a dealer in the articles have been exhibited. In the prosecution report itself the Petitioner has not been described as a dealer in the various articles regarding which fault was found with him nor in his evidence p.w. 1 has also stated about such fact. In view of such poor evidence on the side of the prosecution, it would indeed be difficult to .conclusively hold the Petitioner to be a dealer. The question was also considered in Madan Mohan Agarwala Vs. State of Orissa, where it was held that it was essential for the prosecution to establish the accused as a dealer and that merely because certain stock was found in the shop there cannot be an assertion that he was a dealer in the said article. Similar view was also taken in Govind Prasad Jaiswal v. The State of Orissa 62 (l986) C.L.T. 656. 5. Besides, the very defence plea taken by the Petitioner that the articles in question had been purchased recently also finds support from the prosecution evidence. Even though the Petitioner in his statement u/s 313, Cr. P.C stated that cocoanut oil and batteries had been purchased that day it was p.w. 3s statement that the servant of the Petitioner had brought ghee. Dal Chana and batteries from the market for sale that by that time those articles had not" been sold and that the Petitioner had also taken- the plea during the raid itself that he purchased those articles just then and hence had not been able to enter the same in the stock and price board. Dal Chana and batteries from the market for sale that by that time those articles had not" been sold and that the Petitioner had also taken- the plea during the raid itself that he purchased those articles just then and hence had not been able to enter the same in the stock and price board. In view of such evidence of p.w. 3 taking a broad view of the matter, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been in any way able to displace the plea of the' Petitioner and rather the Petitioner has been able to establish his 'plea through the prosecution evidence and so far as the onus if at all upon him to prove such fact the same must be said to have been discharged by preponderance of probability. 6. In view of the foregoing conclusions, I do not find that the conviction of the Petitioner is sustainable in law and hence the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner an quashed. Final Result : Allowed